How many ways can he re-write his legacy?

[Rude]

Originally posted by midnight Target
And the "Sudan Offer" has been shown to be at the very least questionable and possibly an out-and-out lie told by a current staffer of Fox news.

Yup...it's Bush's fault and Clinton never dropped the ball.

Sorry MT....how many attacks against American interests took place under his watch?

Funny how you seem to grant a free ticket to Clinton...hard for me to take you very seriously when you seem so partisan. I have openly admitted before....I trust my president, because I choose to do so, as I did Clinton regarding his job(not his personal intent)...for all I know, Bush could be worse. Until proof of his dishonesty surfaces, I will continue to trust him.

C'mon MT...you know deep down inside, Clinton fed on popularity and would take no risk that a poll would not support. He was afraid of making too strong of a stand against terrorism in spite of his knowledge of the facts.

Perhaps we can strive for success in Iraq before we blow the dickens out of Syria or N. Korea....the only way this will end is if a Democrat President sells us out again to the UN, which will ultimately lead to another 9-11 type attack.

Be honest and stop this incessant trolling you do.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Kieran
Wow, what a condescending POS you are. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. Anyway, what gofaster said.

Oooooooh, touchy a bit huh?

Again, I ask you to READ what I said.  I said I don't see how it will affect voters.  Never said it wouldn't, never said it won't, and as of yet, no one has illustarted why it will influnce voters at all.  As for gofasters remark, yeah, a lot of Pres do come from Gov's but as I said, I (that is singular, meaning myself) don't see how this story will influnce voter's opinions.  

So, to some it up, how will Clinton's admission that he told G.W. about OSL make me want to vote for one party and not the other when all it is is Clinton being Clinton (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[10Bears]

How many ways can he re-write his legacy?
Just go away.

Shall I list the links to the Sudan Govt. offer of Osama to Bill on three ocations.
How about his admins, use of grand jury's to interview terror suspects, rendering all info off limits to FBI, CIA agents, way to go Bill and Janet Reno.

Yes you should JBA, I would be interested to hear your take on that.

The point of the article you posted seems to be that outgoing President Clinton strongly warned incoming President Bush that the biggest threat would be from Ossma bin Laden.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence,"

This would appear to be an “I told you so” moment.  

We know that the Cole bombing happened in November of 2000, that  Clinton deferred any retaliation to the incoming administration. That the new President did nothing about the Cole, shelved the Hart-Rudman anti-terrorism report, recalled the ships offshore of Pakistan and was about to de-fund the anti terrorism task force.

One could make the argument that President Bush dropped the ball in the eight months leading up to the 911 tragedy.

One could also make the argument that a “Pearl Harbor” event is just the ticket to get the people onboard for the Pax America policies outlined in The Project for the New American Century.

[midnight Target]

Not trolling Rude. I don't have any illusions about Clinton. I just hate the constant lies that are told regarding his Presidency.

More people (edit I meant to say Americans) died at the hands of Muslim terrorists during Reagan's term and Bush 1's term than during Clinton's.  

The Sudan deal was never a reality according to many high level sources. The story has been told over and over by the guy who supossedly brokered the deal.... now a Fox news staffer.

Clinton's administration developed almost the exact plan that GW has implemented after 9-11, including a "Dept. of Homeland Security".

No Clinton wasn't a saint, but he wasn't the devil either. He had by almost any measure an extremely successful Presidency.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by midnight Target
And the "Sudan Offer" has been shown to be at the very least questionable and possibly an out-and-out lie told by a current staffer of Fox news.

Here is a transcription along with an audio link of President Clinton explaining how he turned down one Sudanese offer:

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/12/24124


You must credit NewsMax if linking or republishing this article or audio.

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

"And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." (End of excerpt)

[Kieran]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
I said I don't see how it will affect voters.  Never said it wouldn't, never said it won't, and as of yet, no one has illustarted why it will influnce voters at all.  

Because, dear Diablo, a large number of Americans are block voters. If you successfully attack the party, you successfully win votes from them. Presidents always stump for governors and congressmen. The association is already there, so smearing Bush or Clinton is the same as smearing the party.

GWB had a very strong support base from the governors, and they were important to his winning the primary. You see, those governors belong to the party, and they will campaign in their respective states for presidential candidates. The more governors you have in your pocket, the more power you can wield during the election.

[DiabloTX]

Ok, let me be clear then Kieran, I don't think Clinton's admission that he told GW about the threat of OSL is enough to be considered an "attack" on the GOP.  If it was something more substantial then yes I can see that but OSL has been a known threat for some time, well before the transition of power in January, 2001.  However, I am sure that Clinton had PLENTY of evidence before the WTC attack of February, 1993.

[Kieran]

Prior to the first WTC attack Clinton was in exactly the same boat GWB was in when he took office... probably had some intelligence that indicated trouble was brewing, but nothing the American people would have tolerated acting on. After the first WTC, people still didn't seem all that shook up, and seemed quite satisfied with a cruise missile attack or two in response. Of course that didn't really solve anything, but it did look good.

Bush went in with troops, but it took WTC2 to make it happen.

[DiabloTX]

I would refer you to Nuke's link, but I guess you wouldn't be interested in the truth Kieran.  Or would you?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
I would refer you to Nuke's link, but I guess you wouldn't be interested in the truth Kieran.  Or would you?

Go back and read that with a critical eye... assuming that it is all true:

Since last December, Ijaz has insisted that he negotiated the deal for bin Laden's release from Sudan. But he maintained that the White House declined to take advantage of the offer because of legal technicalities - a detail now confirmed by the ex-president

Clinton supposedly said:

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So the "technicality" was that he had committed no crime. So you are upset that Clinton refused to break the law?

 

[JBA]

supposedly? My A** listen to the link.

My original post was the he is re-writhing history.  If he told Bush about OBL in January of 2000, OBL had not committed any crime at that time either. Then way is it relevant that  he told Bush? O Ya Election Year.

[10Bears]

Originally posted by JBA
supposedly? My A** listen to the link.

My original post was the he is re-writhing history.  If he told Bush about Saddam in January of 2000, Saddam had not committed any crime at that time either. Then way is it relevant that  he told Bush? O Ya Election Year.

sigh..

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.

[DiabloTX]

10Bears, he didn't "supposedly" say it, he did say it in the audio if you would listen.  He also said that Al Qaeda used the chemical plant in Africa to store chemical weapons.  Now, "technically" OSL hasn't specifically committed a crime against the US according to what ole Bill says so what was Bill waiting for?  OSL to rob a bank in Reno?  If he knew that "he (OSL) wanted to commit crimes against America." then Bill had to have some kind of evidence to back this up.  "Probable cause" could be used here if he knew for a fact OSL was planning crimes against the US.  And do you really think that OSL wasn't involved in the 1993 attack at the WTC??  Come on now, really???

[Rude]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Not trolling Rude. I don't have any illusions about Clinton. I just hate the constant lies that are told regarding his Presidency.

More people (edit I meant to say Americans) died at the hands of Muslim terrorists during Reagan's term and Bush 1's term than during Clinton's.  

The Sudan deal was never a reality according to many high level sources. The story has been told over and over by the guy who supossedly brokered the deal.... now a Fox news staffer.

Clinton's administration developed almost the exact plan that GW has implemented after 9-11, including a "Dept. of Homeland Security".

No Clinton wasn't a saint, but he wasn't the devil either. He had by almost any measure an extremely successful Presidency.

MT...he lacked character....he served himself and himself only. He was calculating and deliberate in every move of his presidency...doing what was right was far too risky.

My friend in Tulsa who knew both him and Hillary for over 15 years often has said that the public has no idea how badly they were duped....Clinton once said that the public would believe whatever he told them....they were sheep.

He was a bad man and to see you and others worship him is sickening.

I often wonder if you could sit with someone who knew them well and were told the truth, if you would blindly continue to hold this man up in spite of what you were told.

I suppose Dick Morris is a liar and all that he has exposed is due to just a falling out between he and Clinton. What's it take to get you to honestly take a look?

[Kieran]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
I would refer you to Nuke's link, but I guess you wouldn't be interested in the truth Kieran.  Or would you?

Wow. What a condescending POS you are. Oh, and what MT said.